[PATCH 4.9 101/310] perf report: Fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2018-04-11 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. -- From: Milian Wolff [ Upstream commit 1982ad48fc82c284a5cc55697a012d3357e84d01 ] As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that are no activation frames need to have their program counter d

[PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 102/281] perf report: Fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2018-03-19 Thread Sasha Levin
From: Milian Wolff [ Upstream commit 1982ad48fc82c284a5cc55697a012d3357e84d01 ] As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that are no activation frames need to have their program counter decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. This fixes many cases where perf r

Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-07-04 Thread Milian Wolff
On Monday, June 19, 2017 8:59:39 PM CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 01:13:11PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu: > > On Samstag, 17. Juni 2017 10:04:02 CEST Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 09:56:57 +0200, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > Not sure whether it nee

Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-06-19 Thread Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Em Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 01:13:11PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu: > On Samstag, 17. Juni 2017 10:04:02 CEST Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 09:56:57 +0200, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > Not sure whether it needs be fixed or not. If we fix it, srcline and > > > address would not match so i

Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-06-17 Thread Milian Wolff
On Samstag, 17. Juni 2017 10:04:02 CEST Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 09:56:57 +0200, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > Not sure whether it needs be fixed or not. If we fix it, srcline and > > address would not match so it can give its own confusion to users. > > Ideally it should display an a

Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-06-17 Thread Jan Kratochvil
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 09:56:57 +0200, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Not sure whether it needs be fixed or not. If we fix it, srcline and > address would not match so it can give its own confusion to users. > Ideally it should display an addressof the instruction before the > address IMHO. One can figure mi

Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-06-17 Thread Namhyung Kim
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Milian Wolff wrote: > On Freitag, 16. Juni 2017 13:57:44 CEST Jan Kratochvil wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 13:51:37 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: >> > > perf-4.12.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc27.x86_64 >> > > >> > > 39e32e gdb_main (/usr/libexec/gdb) >> > >

Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-06-16 Thread Milian Wolff
On Freitag, 16. Juni 2017 13:57:44 CEST Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 13:51:37 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > > perf-4.12.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc27.x86_64 > > > > > > 39e32e gdb_main (/usr/libexec/gdb) > > > 10b6fa main (/usr/libexec/gdb) > > > > > >

Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-06-16 Thread Jan Kratochvil
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 13:51:37 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > perf-4.12.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc27.x86_64 > > 39e32e gdb_main (/usr/libexec/gdb) > > 10b6fa main (/usr/libexec/gdb) > >0x5565f6f6 <+54>:callq 0x558f17a0 > > >0x5565f6fb <+59

Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-06-16 Thread Milian Wolff
On Freitag, 16. Juni 2017 08:14:56 CEST Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2017 17:04:44 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > commit 1982ad48fc82c284a5cc55697a012d3357e84d01 > Author: Milian Wolff > Date: Wed May 24 15:21:25 2017 +0900 > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c > > +++ b/tools/p

Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-06-15 Thread Jan Kratochvil
On Mon, 15 May 2017 17:04:44 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: commit 1982ad48fc82c284a5cc55697a012d3357e84d01 Author: Milian Wolff Date: Wed May 24 15:21:25 2017 +0900 > --- a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c > @@ -168,12 +168,16 @@ frame_callback(Dwfl_Frame *sta

[tip:perf/urgent] perf report: Fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-24 Thread tip-bot for Milian Wolff
Commit-ID: 1982ad48fc82c284a5cc55697a012d3357e84d01 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/1982ad48fc82c284a5cc55697a012d3357e84d01 Author: Milian Wolff AuthorDate: Wed, 24 May 2017 15:21:25 +0900 Committer: Ingo Molnar CommitDate: Wed, 24 May 2017 08:41:48 +0200 perf report: Fix off-by

[PATCH 3/7] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-23 Thread Namhyung Kim
From: Milian Wolff As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that are no activation frames need to have their program counter decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. This fixes many cases where perf report currently attributes the cost to the next line. I.e. I h

Re: [PATCH v3] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-18 Thread Namhyung Kim
Hi Milian, On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:37:35AM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > are no activation frames need to have their program counter > decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. > > This fixes many cases where perf

[PATCH v3] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-18 Thread Milian Wolff
As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that are no activation frames need to have their program counter decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. This fixes many cases where perf report currently attributes the cost to the next line. I.e. I have code like this:

Re: [PATCH v2] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-18 Thread Milian Wolff
On Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 07:12:21 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 06:26:47PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 18:17:26 CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > > > On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 16:38:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:59:51AM +0

Re: [PATCH v2] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-16 Thread Namhyung Kim
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 06:26:47PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 18:17:26 CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > > On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 16:38:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:59:51AM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > > > As the documentation for dwfl_frame

Re: [PATCH v2] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-16 Thread Milian Wolff
On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 18:17:26 CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 16:38:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:59:51AM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > > > are no activation frames need to have thei

Re: [PATCH v2] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-16 Thread Milian Wolff
On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 16:38:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:59:51AM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > > are no activation frames need to have their program counter > > decremented by one to properly find the functi

Re: [PATCH v2] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-16 Thread Namhyung Kim
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:59:51AM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > are no activation frames need to have their program counter > decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. > > This fixes many cases where perf report curre

Re: [PATCH] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-16 Thread Milian Wolff
On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 03:57:53 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 05:13:06PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > On Monday, May 15, 2017 5:04:44 PM CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > > > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > > > are no activation frames need to have thei

[PATCH v2] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-16 Thread Milian Wolff
As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that are no activation frames need to have their program counter decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. This fixes many cases where perf report currently attributes the cost to the next line. I.e. I have code like this:

Re: [PATCH] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-15 Thread Namhyung Kim
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 05:13:06PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > On Monday, May 15, 2017 5:04:44 PM CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > > are no activation frames need to have their program counter > > decremented by one to properly find the functi

Re: [PATCH] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-15 Thread Milian Wolff
On Monday, May 15, 2017 5:04:44 PM CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > are no activation frames need to have their program counter > decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. Note that this leaves the perf build against libunw

[PATCH] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-15 Thread Milian Wolff
As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that are no activation frames need to have their program counter decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. This fixes many cases where perf report currently attributes the cost to the next line. I.e. I have code like this: